Jump to content Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 9/7/2021 at 1:20 PM, ricxxV2 said:

I can assure you that it only looks like I'm defending DR 2.0. I'm basically just criticising the criticism, which is mostly superficial, inaccurate, completely exaggerated or just outright lies. It'd be much better for everyone if the way how we communicate and the culture around it would be based more on respect, fairness and maybe also facts. And no, opinion is not fact, and opinion is not objective. 

Now, first you said it was broken, now it has broken aspects, I don't think I've ever noticed an issue with throttle response, and FFB is a matter of taste. The previous game didn't even simulate the most important force, there was no SAT in DR. Not sure why you think it was better. 

It's factually none of those. You're outright defending things by denying truth and facts. And yes, they are objective facts. You're trying to deplatform me my stating that my objective facts are "outright lies."

Just because you don't have issues doesn't mean it's not broken for others. I documented and recorded my issues and shared it in the beta forum and no one did anything. Stop arguing with me about it. And the FFB isn't a matter of taste when people near universally dislike it, which is why they eventually tried to fix it, and it still isn't great. And once again, I shared this in the beta forum with the other beta testers who also agreed. Along with the general public opinion of people in the forum at the time. Stop arguing with me about it. Having parts of something being broken, still makes the thing broken. I had issues with the game and uninstalled it, the end.

What is objective, though also mentioned by a lot of other people on release, is the camera angles, and I hate all of them. They are markedly worse than DR1's angles and make driving feel worse.

And as to AC, nothing I said is a lie. The console port was atrocious and a bunch of features like decent audio, better UI, and night racing that Stefano said was impossible to do have been done by the community with mods. Stefano has a massive ego without the actual talent to back it up. If his **** was as hot as he said it was he wouldn't have switched to UE4, and then still probably would've actually implemented raytracing. And that's not mentioning the absolute mess ACC was for months after launch.

15 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

What I'm saying is there will be a bunch of new rallies, and a bunch of repeats. We all know this. The repeats could do with some new stages. That would minimise the (inevitable) moaning about them.

Sorry, modernist poetry appreciation is not my forte.

But the repeats having new stages by definition makes it a new track or location, and they're only capable of doing 6 based on past history. You can't make 6 new locations and then further add more stages to existing locations if you can only manage to do 6. It's simple math. What you said doesn't add up. You can do the math by locations, being 6, or by total stage counts, being 12. They CAN NOT do more than 12 stages per dev cycle.

And no, I didn't put words in your mouth. You simultaneously said that porting over old stages is a bad idea while also saying that they should mix old stages with the new ones. It's not a particularly comprehensive statement to be making. My suggestion was to port the existing tracks over while still making 6 new locations, or you could break that into 12 new stages in existing locations. Either way, the math works. You disagreed with me, and then turned around and said that's what they should do.

 

8 hours ago, RodgerDavies said:

Guys, stop bickering please.

NO. One of them straight called me a disingenuous liar and the other was very unclear about what he actually wanted. One is a personal matter which he started, the other is a discussion of clarification.

Edited by JZStudios
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

And no, I didn't put words in your mouth. You simultaneously said that porting over old stages is a bad idea

Kindly cease making stuff up. Please show us my actual quote saying that. You'll find it does not exist. 

What I did was query your blanket assertion that "The DR2.0 stages can be ported over because they are high fidelity enough". 

Are they? We do not know yet. 

And high fidelity enough for what? Remember your telling us that the next game is guaranteed to be in Frostbite? 

Like I said, repeat rallies are likely. New stages are desirable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2021 at 10:20 PM, ricxxV2 said:

I can assure you that it only looks like I'm defending DR 2.0. I'm basically just criticising the criticism, which is mostly superficial, inaccurate, completely exaggerated or just outright lies.

Btw, I was not specifically referring to anyone with that line, I was generally speaking. I think we just disagree on the basics of communication. Whether or not something is true doesn't depend on the number of people agreeing on something. You can shout and complain as much as you want, FFB is a matter of personal preference. 

I personally liked the initial version of the FFB much more. It was quite light at first 'impact', yes, but I got used to it very soon, and I think it was Christina who said it came from the physics only, and you could feel it. It was light but it was pure. The FFB perfectly communicated what the car was doing thanks to SAT, and I had found some good settings for me by playing with SAT and suspension.  

Many people might think that adding weight or random noise makes FFB good, hence why many people probably didn't like the light FFB after release. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Social Media & Community Team

When I had the FFB explained to me, it made sense. It simulates the forces through the steering column, and not what's happening through the rear tyres.

It's more true-to-life, but you don't have the "seat of pants" feel in a game so that would have to be baked in afterwards.

 

Self-aligning torque feels great though, you can still throw the car about once you get used to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole FFB episode at release was terrible to watch. Seemed the dev team were victims of their own success in being true to life. But my God the complaining from players...

I wasn't bothered as I'm a controller user, but anything that might derail the series from continuing is painful to witness. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Social Media & Community Team

Yeah the only thing I feel is missing is the road feel, especially on tarmac. The roads feel extremely smooth.

I'm sure the dev team have loads of feedback (ha) to work on for the future, it was discussed a lot 🙂 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PJTierney said:

Yeah the only thing I feel is missing is the road feel, especially on tarmac. The roads feel extremely smooth.

I'm sure the dev team have loads of feedback (ha) to work on for the future, it was discussed a lot 🙂 

tarmac upgrade my reaction :

can't wait for DR3

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

Kindly cease making stuff up. Please show us my actual quote saying that. You'll find it does not exist. 

09-09-21_09-07_15AM.png.47d4369be233a68bf5c39ef9b00154e7.png

There you say people will complain if they port over existing tracks. You mean that isn't you saying it's a bad idea?

09-09-21_09-08_39AM.thumb.png.6a100a0645084b252649e5e3936072ee.png

Here once again you say it's a bad idea to port over existing Sweden tracks while simultaneously saying they should port over Scotland as a WHINGE dlc track as per previous comment of yours. You also disagreed with my suggestion of porting over existing content and continuing to create new content, but then suggest "Some new stages in amongst the old."

I didn't put words in your mouth. You disagreed with me, ignored my suggestion about still creating new locations, then you disagreed with me again, agreed with me about porting over existing stages, disagreed with me about porting over existing stages again, then agreed with me again about porting over existing stages.

Your argument is inherently unclear.

14 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

What I did was query your blanket assertion that "The DR2.0 stages can be ported over because they are high fidelity enough". 

Are they? We do not know yet. 

And high fidelity enough for what? Remember your telling us that the next game is guaranteed to be in Frostbite? 

Like I said, repeat rallies are likely. New stages are desirable. 

No, you really didn't. That's a completely different argument from what you stated and one I already covered by mentioning how Turn 10 restarted everything with Forza 5.

I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth now. I said EA is forcing devs into Frostbite to disastrous results and there's a high likelihood of it being on Frostbite if nothing changes. There's already rumors the next mass effect game will be in UE4, so it's possible EA is loosening up on it since everything other than Battlefield (Fifa might use it too, don't know) has been a failure. We're going over tread ground already.

Which is why I said port the existing ones and make new locations. It was a very simple statement, but somehow that idea was WHINGE to you. Whatever the hell that means.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, PJTierney said:

When I had the FFB explained to me, it made sense. It simulates the forces through the steering column, and not what's happening through the rear tyres.

It's more true-to-life, but you don't have the "seat of pants" feel in a game so that would have to be baked in afterwards.

 

Self-aligning torque feels great though, you can still throw the car about once you get used to it.

Yeah, but so does every other modern FFB system which was much better, even including the mad lads at BeamNG which is 100% just physical forces on the front wheels. At the time people complained about me complaining that driving on dirt was unrealistically smooth, hitting bumps wouldn't turn the wheel at all like all the cars had some 1970's Cadillac power steering. Just drove my cousins car, and I don't know if it's misaligned, but the power steering is fairly weak and the wheel would quite visibly move over every bump. This behavior is represented perfectly in BeamNG, even PC2, but DR2 was smooth. Always felt like tarmac.

2 hours ago, PJTierney said:

Yeah the only thing I feel is missing is the road feel, especially on tarmac. The roads feel extremely smooth.

Well then. Doesn't that say something. My "opinion" is wrong, yet it's also objectively true that the FFB appears to be missing certain forces.

Edited by JZStudios
  • Disagree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no proof/idea that EA forced the use of the Frostbite engine - you're coming at *everything* from one side, and one side alone.  Ever thought that your studio might want to save a ton of money and not buy licensing for engine and use the 'free in-house' one instead?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, F2CMaDMaXX said:

You have no proof/idea that EA forced the use of the Frostbite engine - you're coming at *everything* from one side, and one side alone.  Ever thought that your studio might want to save a ton of money and not buy licensing for engine and use the 'free in-house' one instead?

Except for all the dev studios that have said that they were made to use Frostbite? It's public knowledge, it's not like some insider trading secret.

Where did I say that wasn't the reason? Of course that's the reason. It still doesn't make Frostbite any better. I never argued why I just stated that they do. The why makes zero difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@JZStudios You're simplifying what I'm saying to suit your purposes. The quotes are not me saying simply "It's a bad idea to port over the old tracks". It's actually saying that there's probably no avoiding it, but people will complain (and we all know they will), unless there are some new stages.  You've even quoted me pointing out how it would be a shame to not drive Scotland again. 

I suggest not making blanket and adamant statements like "It's going to be in Frostbite, and the physics will therefore be bad, because Battlefield", or "we know the stages in 2.0 are high fidelity enough to be ported over". Or at least not flipping out and getting personal when someone takes those statements to issue.

The resulting arguments will upset old Uncle Rodger, and we don't want that.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JZStudios said:

.....I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth now. I said EA is forcing devs into Frostbite to disastrous results and there's a high likelihood of it being on Frostbite if nothing changes. There's already rumors the next mass effect game will be in UE4, so it's possible EA is loosening up on it since everything other than Battlefield (Fifa might use it too, don't know) has been a failure. We're going over tread ground already.

 

 

2 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Except for all the dev studios that have said that they were made to use Frostbite? It's public knowledge, it's not like some insider trading secret.

Where did I say that wasn't the reason? Of course that's the reason. It still doesn't make Frostbite any better. I never argued why I just stated that they do. The why makes zero difference.

 

 

I must have missed 60 minutes.....   Where did you see dev's being forced to use it? (not saying it didn't happen, but common knowledge it does not appear to be - public!=common)

 

Why do you think that DR3 is going to be on Frostbite?  Do you think they would waste all the dev time so far to move it over to another engine?

 

Not a very difficult argument to make if you're a dev, hey, do we pay licensing for our game, or do we use the in-house engine to save time/money?  I really don't think *any* forcing was required.  And yes, Fifa uses Frostbite.

 

 

If these aren't the points you're making them, then either don't bother, or show your working as no one else is following.

Edited by F2CMaDMaXX
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope all this conjecture about Frostbite is actually just a clandestine plot to annoy PJ into dropping some distracting gossip somewhere. Secretly, JZS and Jake have been meeting up once a week wearing fake moustaches and planning this squabble down to a finely orchestrated piece of performance art, expertly ramping it up at WRC10's release to make sure they're heard above the very weird tin-like engine sounds that that game continues to make after 5 versions.

Bravo fellows, bravo. PJ will be posting mysterious pictures of a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 'III' on Instagram any day now, just to get tongues wagging about something else.

---

By the way, I've not followed Dirt5 at all, so I thought I'd look for a carlist that factors in all the DLC - since the game's release, have any cars been added to that which would seem likely candidates for a future Rally title? Be it in the GT class or any others?

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Social Media & Community Team
1 hour ago, RodgerDavies said:

 

By the way, I've not followed Dirt5 at all, so I thought I'd look for a carlist that factors in all the DLC - since the game's release, have any cars been added to that which would seem likely candidates for a future Rally title? Be it in the GT class or any others?

There's a few nice additions to DIRT 5 that I'd like to drive in a rally game.

  • Audi TT Safari
  • FIAT Abarth 124 Rally
  • Porsche 924 GTS Rallye
  • Porsche 959 Prodrive Rally Raid
  • Renault Clio Williams Maxi
  • ŠKODA Fabia Rally2 Evo (updated R5 from DR2)

 

The DLC cars are mainly SUVs, Rallycross cars, Dakar-style cars and fictional ones. All the traditional rally stuff is in the base game.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

About the stages/location and reusing them for DR3.

I am more than happy to see the stages from DR1 and DR2 will back in DR3. They are great and based on real life locations. Its not that the Monza GP is every year on a different track...
Why? Well, with the new possibilities that we have seen in DiRT5, i see a massive potential for the "old" locations.
Basically you can do every stage in every season and condition and time. 
Maybe combine that with a "live" weather functionality, and you can run real time events (just like in MS Flight Simulator).
And put that together again with a staggered start functionality for online events. 

Just image doing the Monte Carlo stages in full summer, of fully snow.
Or that the icy parts of the Monte stages can be in different locations (and with some logic in the code, the co-driver probably can say on a different point where snow/icy starts).
Or Finland/USA in full winter conditions, etc.

But also see the return of for example changeble weather conditions as in DiRT4.

This is a trend what you see in more games, that the gamer is fully (read: more) in control of the gameplay setting.
Same with the new Battlefield for example, in which you can put the german soldiers of WWII against a modern team.

With all the new possibilites the 13 locations a complete new feeling and will be everytime different than the you did the stages before, just like in real life.
Having Finland original, but also in for example fully snow, would make 1 location actually 2 (or more) locations. 

Yes, I can understand for time trail leaderboards a certain set of stages in same conditions will be put.
But for community, club, online events you can set ofcourse different settings.
 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...